Assessor: Matthew Child

Sensitive in 2010
No
Family
Felidae
Exploitation extent
Small or insignificant - wild individuals of the species are known to be exploited, collected, traded or utilized in a targeted manner, but utilisation is localised and/or affects only a small proportion of the wild population.
Justification and references

Despite the sizeable trade of Lions in South Africa, trophy hunting and trade is a negligible threat as utilization appears to be sustainable and wild populations are either stable or increasing. No hunting is allowed in national or provincial parks, which collectively represent > 75% of the total wild Lion population. Furthermore, less than 5% of trophy hunts are sourced from wild populations (Miller et al. 2016). 

For example, Lindsey et al. (2012) reported that the South African hunting operators estimated the proportion of wild Lions hunted annually to be only 0.9 and 1.1% of the totals for 2009 and 2010 respectively. The majority of trophy hunting is performed on private wildlife ranches (53%) or on properties with captive-breeding facilities (42%), where there are at least 6,000 Lions kept in captivity in at least 149 facilities across South Africa (Williams et al. 2015). Although this population does not contribute to the wild population under assessment, it may act as a buffer to the wild population (Lindsey et al. 2012), as well as contributing to the South African economy. Besides trophies, CITES permits have been issued to export large numbers of live Lions across the world, as well as skeletons and bones to east-southeast Asia. From 1992 to 2012, CITES permits to export almost 1,400 live Lions (predominantly captive origin from the North West Province) were issued, 16% of these were destined for southeast Asia (mostly Thailand), and reached a peak of > 280 Lions in 2010 (Williams et al. 2015).

Lion bones are a sustainable by-product of the trophy industry and there was no evidence that any of these skeletons were obtained from wild Lions (Williams et al. 2015). However, the longer-term sustainability of this practice is questionable, particularly if Asian consumers begin demanding wild rather than farmed or captive-bred products as consumer surveys indicate they prefer (Gratwicke et al. 2008). Although there are no specific figures on illegal trade of Lions in South Africa, provincial conservation authorities indicate that illegal use or trade in Lion body parts and products is generally limited to negligible or non-existent. However, this species should be flagged as a potential sensitive species if the lion bone trade becomes more prominent in South Africa. 

Lions are also used for traditional medicine and various trade studies conducted in Gauteng and KwaZulu-Natal urban traditional medicine markets have documented their body parts (usually bones and ‘fat’) for sale, but the quantities are small and the incidences sporadic (Whiting et al. 2011; Williams et al. 2015).

Overall, while the trade in Lion bones to east– southeast Asia has been cited as a potential threat in South Africa, evidence suggests that the trade is not adversely impacting wild Lion subpopulations in South Africa because the skeletons are almost all a by-product of the sizeable trophy hunting industry, and Lions that are hunted in South Africa are almost exclusively captive-bred (Williams et al. 2015).

 

Gratwicke B, Mills J, Dutton A, Gabriel G, Long B, Seidensticker J, Wright B, You W, Zhang L. 2008. Attitudes toward consumption and conservation of tigers in China. PLoS One 3:e2544.

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0002544

Lindsey P, Alexander R, Balme G, Midlane N, Craig J. 2012. Possible Relationships between the South African Captive-Bred Lion Hunting Industry and the Hunting and Conservation of Lions Elsewhere in Africa. South African Journal of Wildlife Research 42(1):11–22

http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.3957/056.042.0103

Miller S, Riggio J, Funston P, Power RJ, Williams V, Child MF. 2016. A conservation assessment of Panthera leo. In Child MF, Roxburgh L, Do Linh San E, Raimondo D, Davies-Mostert HT, editors. The Red List of Mammals of South Africa, Swaziland and Lesotho. South African National Biodiversity Institute and Endangered Wildlife Trust, South Africa.

https://www.ewt.org.za/Reddata/pdf/Carnivora(5)/2016%20Mammal%20Red%20List_Panthera%20leo_LC.pdf

Whiting MJ, Williams VL, Hibbitts TJ. 2011. Animals traded for traditional medicine at the Faraday market in South Africa: species diversity and conservation implications. Journal of Zoology 284:84–96.

Williams VL, Newton DJ, Loveridge AJ, Macdonald DW. 2015. Bones of contention: an assessment of the South African trade in African Lion Panthera leo bones and other body parts. TRAFFIC, Cambridge, UK & WildCRU, Oxford, UK.

https://www.wildcru.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Bones_of_contention.pdf

Population vulnerability
Population is vulnerable: size is <= 2500 mature individuals OR the number of known subpopulations is <= 5 OR range is <= 100km2 OR species at risk of localised extinctions
Justification and references

Including Lions on small reserves yields a total mature population size of 1,775 individuals in South Africa as of 2015 (Miller et al. 2016). These subpopulations are also restricted to fenced reserves which may make them vulnerable to poahcing effort. 

 

Miller S, Riggio J, Funston P, Power RJ, Williams V, Child MF. 2016. A conservation assessment of Panthera leo. In Child MF, Roxburgh L, Do Linh San E, Raimondo D, Davies-Mostert HT, editors. The Red List of Mammals of South Africa, Swaziland and Lesotho. South African National Biodiversity Institute and Endangered Wildlife Trust, South Africa.

https://www.ewt.org.za/Reddata/pdf/Carnivora(5)/2016%20Mammal%20Red%20List_Panthera%20leo_LC.pdf

Targeted demographics
Mature (breeding) individuals are killed, significantly weakened or are permanently removed from the wild, OR immature individuals are targeted and this significantly impacts mature (breeding) individuals.
Justification and references

Animals are killed for their body parts in traditional medicine (Williams et al. 2015).

 

Williams VL, Newton DJ, Loveridge AJ, Macdonald DW. 2015. Bones of contention: an assessment of the South African trade in African Lion Panthera leo bones and other body parts. TRAFFIC, Cambridge, UK & WildCRU, Oxford, UK.

https://www.wildcru.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Bones_of_contention.pdf

Regeneration potential
This species has a fast population growth rate, and there is a good chance the wild populations will recover from exploitation.
Justification and references

Recent surveys in Kruger National Park, using 240 call-up stations distributed randomly throughout KNP, indicate the subpopulation has increased over the past decade from 1,684 (95% confidence intervals 1,617–1,751) in 2005 to 1,803 (95% confidence intervals 1,715–1,891) individuals in 2015 and, for adult females specifically, from 415 (95% confidence intervals 380–450) to 604 (95% confidence intervals 515– 693) (S. Ferreira unpubl. data) (Miller et al. 2016).

Lions have also been extensively reintroduced onto small reserves (including national, provincial and privately protected areas), having increased from one in 1990 to 45 in 2013, with a corresponding increase in numbers from 10 to c. 500 (Miller et al. 2013; Miller & Funston 2014). Around 45% of these Lions are mature (225 individuals), as opposed to 50% of Lions in large national parks or transfrontier parks (1,400 individuals). Indeed, managers of reintroduced lion subpopulations in small reserves (<1000 km2) in South Africa are challenged by high rates of population increase and how best to control them.

We thus infer that lions are capable of rapid regeneration with a good chance that the population recovers from exploitation. 

 

Miller SM et al. 2013. Management of reintroduced lions in small, fenced reserves in South Africa: an assessment and guidelines. South African Journal of Wildlife Research 43(2):138–154.

https://journals.co.za/content/wild/43/2/EJC143727

Miller SM, Funston PJ. 2014. Rapid growth rates of lion (Panthera leo) populations in small, fenced reserves in South Africa: a management dilemma. South African Journal of Wildlife Research 44(1):43–55.

http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.3957/056.044.0107

Miller S, Riggio J, Funston P, Power RJ, Williams V, Child MF. 2016. A conservation assessment of Panthera leo. In Child MF, Roxburgh L, Do Linh San E, Raimondo D, Davies-Mostert HT, editors. The Red List of Mammals of South Africa, Swaziland and Lesotho. South African National Biodiversity Institute and Endangered Wildlife Trust, South Africa.

https://www.ewt.org.za/Reddata/pdf/Carnivora(5)/2016%20Mammal%20Red%20List_Panthera%20leo_LC.pdf